رُدّوها عَلَيَّ ۖ فَطَفِقَ مَسحًا بِالسّوقِ وَالأَعناقِ
‘Bring it back for me!’ Then he [and others] began to wipe [their] legs and necks.
EXEGESIS
Ruddūhā (bring it back) is an imperative command directed at a plural. It here should be referring to the horses. The command then should be directed at his workers, telling them to bring back the horses.
Ṭafiqa (began) is a word that is used to indicate the beginning of some action. It can only be used in the affirmative.
Masḥ (wipe) means to pass one’s hand over something, removing traces or things from it while doing so. It is said that wiping is used figuratively to mean striking with a sword.
Sūq (legs) is the plural of sāq, meaning leg.
EXPOSITION
Once the horses had been arrayed in front of Prophet Solomon (a) in a long line that stretched to the horizon, he asked for them to all be brought back to him once more, Bring it back for me, to show the significance attached to them and to teach his people to appreciate these animals for the value they could bring them and the aid they could provide them in battle.
Although the coming back of the horses is omitted – due to the succinct style of storytelling – it is understood that they did indeed come back. Once they were brought back he began to wipe [their] legs and necks. As we mentioned, it is not easy to change the mentality and traditions of a people, but the best way to do so is to lead by example. By getting ‘hands on’, he wished to show there was nothing wrong with utilising horses and there was in fact much benefit in it.
There is another possibility as well. It could be that Prophet Solomon (a) had been gifted these horses (as the Biblical passages quoted previously suggest), and that seeing these fine animals being displayed in front of him, he momentarily felt the attraction of worldly glamour and luxury. He then asked all of them to be brought back to him and passed his hands over these horses as a sign that he wishes to give them away to be used in jihad for the sake of God. This was an indication that he as a prophet did not desire such worldly luxuries. He was not interested in the power or the riches that came with his position as king, but rather wished only to use it in the service of God.
It also makes sense thematically, as it fits in with the story of the contenders that came to Prophet David (a). In that story we learned that God wished to elevate Prophet David (a) to a higher status, when he momentarily felt his heart leaning towards something (to help the poor man) and spoke hastily. Here, we are told that Prophet Solomon (a) momentarily felt his heart lean towards something and immediately sought to distance himself from it. This would also fit in with both prophets being described as oft-returning. Both are great merits of great men, and worthy of being mentioned in the Quran.
Finally, careful consideration would tell us that these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Prophet Solomon (a) could very well have been gifted these horses and then dedicated them to jihad, saying he loved those horses, but only for the sake of God, affirming that he was not swayed by their splendour or indeed by any worldly luxuries, while at the same time wishing to teach the Israelites the importance of horses in warfare.
INSIGHTS FROM HADITH
- From Ibn Abbas, that he asked Imam Ali (a) regarding this verse, and he said: ‘What have you heard regarding it, O Ibn Abbas?’ I said: ‘I have heard Kaʿb say that Solomon was busy with inspecting the war horses (afrās), until he missed the prayer. He then said “bring it back to me”, meaning the horses, which numbered fourteen. He then ordered their shanks and necks to be struck with the blade and he killed them. So God took away his kingdom for fourteen days because he wronged the steeds by killing them.’ Imam Ali (a) replied: ‘Kaʿb has lied. Rather, Solomon was busy with inspecting the warhorses one day because he wished to wage jihad against the enemy, [doing so] until the sun set behind the veil. He then said – by the command of God – to the angels responsible for the sun, “bring it back to me”. So it was brought back and he prayed his evening prayer in its time. Certainly the prophets of God do not commit injustice and do not order anyone to commit injustice, because they are infallible and purified.’
- From Imam al-Ṣādiq (a): ‘One day, at evening time, horses were being presented to Solomon the son of David (a), and he was busy with viewing them until the sun disappeared behind the veil, and he said to the angels: “Return the sun to me so that I may pray my prayer in its time,” and they returned it. He then got up and wiped his feet and neck and ordered his companions who had missed the prayer to do the same, and this was their ritual ablutions for prayer. He then got up and when he finished, the sun set and the stars rose. This is what God – mighty and glorious – means when he says, And to David we gave Solomon.’
REVIEW OF TAFSĪR LITERATURE
As mentioned, the scholars are divided over what hā (it) in ruddūhā is referring to. Two options have been suggested: the horses and the sun.
Ṭabrisī claims that most of the exegetes believed it was the horses. As Rāzī points out, there are four options in total with the verb tawārat (disappeared) in the previous verse. With one referring to one or the other, or to both. The only option out of these not listed below is the horses travelling over the horizon and the sun being called back, as that would make little sense.
- The sun set behind the horizon, causing Solomon (a) to miss his prayers, he commanded the sun to be brought back to him, and then began to perform the ritual ablution for prayers, then he began to wipe legs and necks. It is said that according to their shariah the ritual ablution was performed in this manner, by wiping legs and necks.
- The sun set behind the horizon, causing Solomon (a) to miss his prayers, so he commanded the horses to be brought back to him, and then he began to strike their shanks and necks, slaughtering them, saying: ‘You will not withhold me from remembering my Lord ever again.’
And two variations for the third option:
- The horses travelled behind the horizon, so Solomon (a) commanded the horses to be brought back to him, then began to gently wipe their shanks and necks so that he may honour them (as they were to be used for the holy purpose of jihad).
- The horses travelled behind the horizon, so Solomon (a) commanded the horses to be brought back to him, then began to pass his hands over their shanks and necks, marking them to be given away as charity and no longer his own property.
Many have criticised the second opinion as being contrary to the behaviour of a prophet, slaughtering innocent animals in that fashion, when he himself would have been to blame.
Some have tried to defend the second opinion by saying that he did that in order to give its meat as charity to the poor, not in order to take vengeance on the horses. He did that because they were his most prized possessions and he wished to act on God’s advice You will never attain piety until you spend out of what you hold dear (3:92). This still makes little sense, as the fine warhorses would be far more valuable as charity if given alive, rather than as meat. It also is still problematic as it would attribute waste to a prophet of God, as slaughtering expensive warhorses for meat (unless they were facing some sort of famine, which they seemingly were not, and to assume that would be contrary to the verse) is not justifiable.
Departing from these views, Mudarrisi argues that Solomon (a) missed the preferred time (faḍīlah) for the evening prayer, as he was busy inspecting the horses for war, until the sun had almost set, or had gone behind something (like a mountain, perhaps). Realising the time was almost over, he admitted his mistake, as it is not beyond the king or a prophet to admit mistakes. He then performed his prayer before the time had ended, after which he asked for the horses to be brought back and continued with their inspection. Accordingly, this would be a merit for Solomon (a), since he admitted his mistake, while paying attention to two wājib actions. This is an acceptable explanation, although not as satisfactory as what we mentioned earlier.
INSIGHTS FROM OTHER TRADITIONS
Something similar to the story of ‘bringing back the sun’ is attributed to Joshua.
- On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!
[1] The suffix hā can refer to the singular feminine, or a non-human plural. Scholars have argued for both positions.
[2] Zubaydi, 13/300.
[3] Raghib, p. 767.
[4] Tibyan, 8/561; Tabrisi, 8/740; Zamakhshari, 4/93.
[5] Tabari, 23/100.
[6] Sharīf al-Murtaḍā, Tanzīh al-Anbiyāʿ, 2/268.
[7] That would be Abū Isḥāq Kaʿb ibn Mātiʿ al-Ḥumayrī, known also as Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, a Jewish convert to Islam who was the source of many Isrāʾīliyyāt narrations.
[8] Tabrisi, 8/741; Thalabi, 8/200.
[9] Faqih, 1/202-203.
[10] Tabrisi, 8/740-741.
[11] Razi, 26/390.
[12] In this case the plural imperative ruddū should be addressed to the angels.
[13] Tibyan, 8/561; Tabrisi, 8/741; Mizan, 17/203. Ṭabrisī attributes this view to Imam Ali (a).
[14] Tibyan, 8/561; Tabrisi, 8/741; Thalabi, 8/200; Zamakhshari, 4/92; Baghawi, 4/68; Baydawi, 5/29; Ahkam, 4/1648; Alusi, 12/185. Ṭabrisī attributes this view to Hasan al-Baṣrī and Muqātil. Thaʿlabī says that he slaughtered 900 of his thousand horses, and that all horses today descend from those one hundred remaining horses. This is a strange claim to make and there seems to be no reasoning behind it.
[15] Tibyan, 8/561; Tabrisi, 8/741; Tabari, 23/100; Thalabi, 8/201; Razi, 26/391-392; Nemuneh, 19/273-274; Tantawi, 12/159. This view is attributed to Ibn Abbas, Zuhrī, and others. Rāzī tries to explain this by saying that Prophet Solomon (a) was aware of the various ailments and diseases that horses might have, so he inspected them by wiping them to make sure they were in order for battle. If the verse is understood like this, it does not seem like a great merit that should be recounted here.
[16] Tabrisi, 8/741; Mizan, 17/203; Muhit, 9/154. Thaʿlabī says wiping here means branding them (Thalabi, 8/201). Ibn al-ʿArabī criticises this, arguing that the shanks are not a place for branding an animal (Ahkam, 4/1649).
[17] Tabari, 23/100; Razi, 26/391; Mizan, 17/204; Nemuneh, 19/275.
[18] Tibyan, 8/561; Tabrisi, 8/741; Thalabi, 8/201; Ahkam, 4/1648; Alusi, 12/185.
[19] This view is adopted by some other scholars as well. See Nur, 4/454.
[20] Mudarrisi, 11/357-358.
[21] Joshua 10:12-14.